Unanswered Questions


Recommended Posts

Why did Smith start a "translation" of the fraudulent Kinderhook plates? Joseph Smith writes "I have translated a portion of them, and find they contain the history of the person with whom they were found. He was a descendant of Ham, through the loins of Pharaoh, king of Egypt, and that he received his kingdom from the Ruler of heaven and earth." (History of the Church, Vol. 5 page 372)

I understand that people are not perfect and so forth, but how and I to believe that he translated the scriptures correclty when he had begun to translate this. Also we know that the Book of Abraham is not a direct translation. I have read many articles on both sides and both agree on this. It is just that the apologists say there is a deeper meaning. What if the BoM is not translated correctly and we are missing the deeper meaning in it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 219
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Regarding the rock in the hat, I read a funny story a couple years ago. I think it was Martin Harris who wondered about the seer stone and handed a different rock to Joseph that looked like it to test him. As Joseph started to use it, he said, "Martin, it's dark as Egypt in here!" :lol: According to my understanding, he wasn't allowed to use the urim and thummim after he let Martin take the 116 pages from the BOM transcript and lost them. I'm guessing the seer stone was a less convenient method of translation. Growing up in the church, I think people have this image of him sitting next to the plates as he writes the transcription by inspiration and the idea of him using a rock in a hat is goofy. But then people have pointed out lots of things that sound just as goofy or even more so in the Bible. God can use whatever translation methods he wants and whatever will work for his messengers.

Years ago during an interfaith conversation, there was a girl interested in many religions and she pointed out something interesting. She wondered how Joseph Smith described the urim and thummim so accurately when there was very little said about it in the Bible. She said she thought there had to be some inspiration involved with that and doubted he could have known much about it during his time.

Also, I read a biography of Joseph Smith a long while back and I have always laughed at what a stinker he could be sometimes. There was a story about his conversation with some ministers of other faiths, some Bible verses thrown back and forth, and then he said, "Now that you've seen you can't best me at the scriptures, see if you can best me at this!" Then he jumped as far as he could and drew a line where he landed, challenging the others to try to jump further. Pretty human of him. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm afraid I have never heard of the Kinderhook plates. I shall have to look that up. Of course I can't give a view on the subject because I know nothing about it.

I think the BOM translation story has been simplified perhaps because it would be too complicated to accept at first if there were different methods used at different times, perhaps for different reasons. If the Holy Ghost can inspire translation then I believe he can also inspire knowledge of something if that something is not immediately accessible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well...there are only two problems with you...One...you're married...so I can't ask you to dance...Two...You're Baptist, so you'd turn me down even if you were single to my offer to dance.....bwahahahahahahahahahahaha

Had we met as teenagers...we'd have been wicked at Cow Tipping....:roflmbo:

I am actually laughing right now believe it or not..but a couple of things..1. I am Not baptist i just happen to go to a baptist church right now.. 2. not all baptist do not dance just those strange leaglist baptist churches..my church dances and I used to be a dancer.:lol:

bwahhhahahh back at ya..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And also, I want you to know that I understand that where you and your wife are right now is a very lonely place. I grew up in the church, and when I started questioning I had a lot of fears about what would happen to my life if I left. It would affect my marriage (no longer being of the same faith), it would affect my kids (two religions in one home! how confusing!), and it would be a monumental change to my identity. It was frightening, but with a lot of prayer I was able to conquer the fear and really delve into the Scriptures. Sometimes I found things that made me rejoice, and sometimes I found things that made me groan. But after awhile I found that the things that made me rejoice made the things that made me groan look like grains of sand, and I started to notice that those negative things weren't doctrines, but failings of the leaders, both past and present, both in this dispensation, and those leaders spoken of in ancient scripture. When it came to the teachings of the church that had to do with the Savior, and the family, and my identity as a daughter of God, I found great comfort and confidence in the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Sometimes I think we as members do a disservice to those who are asking difficult questions when we say things like "It doesn't matter", or "Just pray". I felt like my questions were being made light of when I was told those things, even if that was not the intention of the person giving me that "answer". I think we as members need to be more compassionate, and less afraid of facing the dark spots in the church's past. Because you know what? We've over come them. The church hasn't made the same mistake twice! :lol: The Lord keeps forgiving us of our mistakes and helping us to do better in the future. I eventually came to the realization that I was solely responsible for my own Testimony. NOBODY was going to be able to give me a satisfactory answer as to what is Truth, only God could do that, so I started to pray for guidance in where to find the answers to my questions, and I started to be lead in interesting directions. I never thought a "meaty" book of doctrine, like Jesus the Christ, would help me put church history into perspective. The Testimony born in that book about our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ helped me to see His Hand in all things more clearly, and the things that were done by the hand of man more clearly also, and I didn't see the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as a creation of the hand of men.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Growing up in the church, I think people have this image of him sitting next to the plates as he writes the transcription by inspiration and the idea of him using a rock in a hat is goofy. But then people have pointed out lots of things that sound just as goofy or even more so in the Bible.

Maybe to people who have never heard it before the story of Jesus spitting in the dirt and then putting the mud on a blind mans eyes sounds pretty goofy too - and as for talking to a bush, even if it is a burning one well that sounds like someone totally out of his tree. (If you'll pardon the pun)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing regarding church history, I don't know how much time the church should spend on things that don't pertain to our salvation. It can be interesting, but can it make us better people and bring us closer to Heavenly Father?

I would consider the origins of the only true and restored gospel a pretty important thing to know. If I didn't think so, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest User-Removed

I don't want to post 2,000 questions here but my first one is this:

Why is the taught translation of the book of mormon different than that of how it was really done, with Joesph's peep stone and head in his hat?

If I can get an answer from someone, that would be a start.

Before I get started, let me say this...I am uncomfortable with how you asked your question. After many emails back and forth with a couple of moderators, I decided to make a stab at not being so cynical. BUT...I will tell you, the only people who discuss "Seer Stones" or "Peep Stones" are Anti's, Apostates or those who still weep for the September 6? Tell me, have you ever read D. Michael Quinn?

The Book of Mormon we have today is the same Book of Mormon published in 1830, except for a number of grammatical changes.

The 1830 version wasn't in chapter and verse. There have been a word nuanced here and there. Most recently...the Ed Decker, et al crowd were screaming because something was changed from white and delightsome to pure and delightsome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With a simple concept of how the Book of Mormon was translated, why was it shown to me since primary the two pictures of the translation. Both show Smith translating them, but in reality he used hte peep stone interchangably with the urim and thummim in a hat. Many times the plates weren't even in the room. This isn't a translation. This is confirmed by Daniel Peterson and the church does not deny it.

Hi YellowLight! So, you want strait answers with no beating around the bush? How about this - is it advisable to believe any artist's rendering of historical events? Of course you're gonna be let down if you look into the realities of the situation. Our primary teachers have to show the kids something, and they only have artists renditions to go from, and the artists had a flawed understanding of how the book of mormon came forth. Does this make the church not true? Does the fact that my Bishop's office currently displays artwork from the guy who has Moroni riding a horse [never mentioned in the BoM] mean the church isn't true? Is anyone lying to me? Nope.

It might do you some good to think about what the church's job is, vs your perception of what it is. The 3 fold mission is to Perfect the Saints, Proclaim the Gospel, Redeem the dead. Most primary and sunday school teachers aren't historians, they're peoples mommies who volunteer to serve in a calling. The church has always taught that Joseph brought forth the book of mormon by the power and gift of God - I was never taught he did it on his own. Were you?

Here's what Dr. Peterson has to say about the issue:

I don't see this as all that big a deal, one way or the other. Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon using a stone or else using two stones. Big difference. He got the Book of Mormon by revelation when the plates were within eyesight or when they weren't. Again, big difference.

I can live with inaccurate illustrations. I've done so all my life. Da Vinci's Last Supper is no more accurate than is any Ensign illustration. The famous painting of Washington crossing the Delaware is multiply inaccurate, too. Every historical painting is. Sometimes grossly so. So is every historical film, docudrama, and historical novel.

...

But I think it's quite baseless to suppose that it was deliberate, that the illustrators who produced these common images had any sinister motive or even, necessarily, knew that their "artist's representations" were historically incorrect. Most members simply don't know much about this stuff, and I have no reason to imagine that illustrators know more than average non-illustrators do about Church history. I wish it were otherwise, but it ain't.

LM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest User-Removed

OK...I'm sniffing a set up here....Do I need to find the apostate website and post it that someone is allegedly asking questions from????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't want to post 2,000 questions here but my first one is this:

Why is the taught translation of the book of mormon different than that of how it was really done, with Joesph's peep stone and head in his hat?

If I can get an answer from someone, that would be a start.

I have always been taught that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by the gift and power of God. I'm not aware that the Church teaches anything that contradicts that. Elder Maxwell said the following about the methods used:

Whatever the details of the process, it required Joseph’s intense, personal efforts along with the aid of the revelatory instruments. The process may have varied as Joseph’s capabilities grew, involving the Urim and Thummim but perhaps with less reliance upon such instrumentalities in the Prophet’s later work of translation. Elder Orson Pratt of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles said Joseph Smith told him that he used the Urim and Thummim when he was inexperienced at translation but that later he did not need it, which was the case in Joseph’s translation of many verses of the Bible (see Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star, 11 Aug. 1874, 498–99). (Church Publications (HTML))

The Church has been quite open about how it was translated, and what we know about the process. I have known for a long time that Joseph used different instruments, like the Urim and Thummim, and sometimes no instrument during the translation process. Sometimes he didn't even have the plates where he could see them.

On a personal level. Where did you serve as a missionary? I served in Finland myself.

Sincerely,

Vanhin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What church history stories do you think are important? Where should it draw the line? When I learned about the rock in the hat, I seriously did not care one bit and it didn't matter to me because I love The Book of Mormon, I know it's true, and I wouldn't care if he had translated it while swinging from a trapeze. There is a lots and lots of church history and when it comes to our manuals, maybe the writers aren't even aware of everything. I don't think the church was trying to hide the seer stone story because it's not like it sounds any weirder than using the Urim and Thummim. What if The Book of Mormon said nothing about the Liahona and then the 116 pages were found and it was mentioned in there. That might be a foreign idea to us. And I can only imagine how bizarre it must sound to non-Christians that we eat bread and water (or wine) to represent someone's body and blood. We grew up with that, so it's normal to us. My philosophy is not to allow the things I don't know to distract me from the things I do know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Before I get started, let me say this...I am uncomfortable with how you asked your question. After many emails back and forth with a couple of moderators, I decided to make a stab at not being so cynical. BUT...I will tell you, the only people who discuss "Seer Stones" or "Peep Stones" are Anti's, Apostates or those who still weep for the September 6? Tell me, have you ever read D. Michael Quinn?

The Book of Mormon we have today is the same Book of Mormon published in 1830, except for a number of grammatical changes.

The 1830 version wasn't in chapter and verse. There have been a word nuanced here and there. Most recently...the Ed Decker, et al crowd were screaming because something was changed from white and delightsome to pure and delightsome.

Trust me, I am not Anti. And no, I don't know who D. Michael Quinn is but I guess I can google this person. My guess is that he/she is anti by your wording...

I am not sure what you mean about the BoM being the same. Of course there have been revisions for things here and there...not sure where you are going with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe to people who have never heard it before the story of Jesus spitting in the dirt and then putting the mud on a blind mans eyes sounds pretty goofy too - and as for talking to a bush, even if it is a burning one well that sounds like someone totally out of his tree. (If you'll pardon the pun)

Exactly! Did the dirt actually do something to heal the man? I don't think so. I think it was a tool to help him believe he could be healed.

Is it not normal to talk to burning bushes? I set fire to one yesterday and had a pretty good conversation. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK...I'm sniffing a set up here....Do I need to find the apostate website and post it that someone is allegedly asking questions from????

It is possible to come up with these kinds of questions about the church without going to anti's websites. Comments like this are what push questioners OUT of the church. I know I was extremely frustrated when my husband tried to tell me I must be getting my information from anti sites, because I absolutely wasn't.

I'll say it again, I believe we do a great disservice to questioning members when we question the motives behind their questions! (wow, how many times can I use question in a sentence? :lol: )

The church can stand up to questioning. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BUT...I will tell you, the only people who discuss "Seer Stones" or "Peep Stones" are Anti's, Apostates or those who still weep for the September 6? Tell me, have you ever read D. Michael Quinn?

To me the term 'seer stone' sounds quite respectful whereas 'peep stone' sounds like it is mocking. Perhaps that's only a personal thing. Were not the Urim and Thummim themselves seer stones?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest User-Removed
Why did Smith start a "translation" of the fraudulent Kinderhook plates? QUOTE]

Yellow...With all due respect to you...It's been my experience that those who refer to The Prophet Joseph Smith in a cavalier 3rd person manner...such as you just did, are either anti's or apostates.

You've come on this thread professing to be desirerous of seeking legitimate answers to serious questions. Yet, your first two "questions" are seemingly straight out of something Jerrold and Sandra Tanner would write.

I pray dearly, that you are not toying with or mocking the folks on this thread....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is possible to come up with these kinds of questions about the church without going to anti's websites. Comments like this are what push questioners OUT of the church. I know I was extremely frustrated when my husband tried to tell me I must be getting my information from anti sites, because I absolutely wasn't.

I'll say it again, I believe we do a great disservice to questioning members when we question the motives behind their questions! (wow, how many times can I use question in a sentence? :lol: )

The church can stand up to questioning. :)

Thank you. This has to be the most frustrating thing I have ever encountered. It seems that you have been faced with what I am going through. You have questions...what...you must be reading ANTI literature. Then again, thanks to all who are sincerely answering my questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is possible to come up with these kinds of questions about the church without going to anti's websites. Comments like this are what push questioners OUT of the church. I know I was extremely frustrated when my husband tried to tell me I must be getting my information from anti sites, because I absolutely wasn't.

I'll say it again, I believe we do a great disservice to questioning members when we question the motives behind their questions! (wow, how many times can I use question in a sentence? :lol: )

The church can stand up to questioning. :)

That's right! :)

I'm even surprised that YellowLight has been having trouble getting answers. Personally I haven't had any trouble, and I haven't seen anything that concerns me even a little bit about the history of the Church.

Vanhin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why did Smith start a "translation" of the fraudulent Kinderhook plates? QUOTE]

Yellow...With all due respect to you...It's been my experience that those who refer to The Prophet Joseph Smith in a cavalier 3rd person manner...such as you just did, are either anti's or apostates.

You've come on this thread professing to be desirerous of seeking legitimate answers to serious questions. Yet, your first two "questions" are seemingly straight out of something Jerrold and Sandra Tanner would write.

I pray dearly, that you are not toying with or mocking the folks on this thread....

oh little faith..:unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share